David TING et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020005699 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/843,460 12/15/2017 David TING IPV-043CP/107513-5043 2127 23517 7590 02/02/2022 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (BO) 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 EXAMINER TOLCHINSKY, GREGORY P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2454 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): judith.troilo@morganlewis.com phpatentcorrespondence@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID TING, GUS MALEZIS, JASON MAFERA, ALAIN SLAK, AARON MIRI, and PAUL ORAMASIONWU Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention is directed to a healthcare information system which allows information to be available as a clinician moves from place to place. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3, 5. The system predicts the movement of the clinician and 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). According to Appellant, Imprivata, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 2 provisions the information resources to a device at the predicted location. Spec. ¶ 11. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A method of anticipatory provisioning of resources for a mobile user in an institutional space, the method comprising the steps of: providing a database storing records for a plurality of users, each of the records specifying information about one of the users; detecting, at a first device at a first location, access to a secure resource by a previously authenticated user having a record in the database; detecting a walk-away event at the first device and, in response, causing a privacy screen to be launched at the first device; based on the first location and the information about the user in the corresponding database record, predicting (i) a future location of the user and (ii) stored data required by the user at the future location; causing a second device at the predicted location to electronically retrieve the stored data but suppress display thereof with a privacy screen thereover; detecting a walk-up event of the user to the second device, the walk-up event indicating the user's presence at the predicted location; following detection of the walk-up event at the second device, displaying the retrieved data on the second device at the predicted location by removing the privacy screen. Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 through 7, 23, and 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch (US 2012/0023223 A1, published January 26, 2012) and Walrath (US 2008/0184355 A1, published July 31, 2008). Final Act. 5-11. The Examiner has rejected claims 2, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Chickering (US 2011/0153854 A1, published June 23, 2011). Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Adogla (US 2015/0207683 A1, published July 23, 2015). Final Act. 12-14. The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Morisaki (US 2009/0303329 A1, published December 10, 2009). Final Act. 14. The Examiner has rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, Morisaki, and Smith (US 2013/0110537 A1, published May 2, 2013). Final Act. 14-15. The Examiner has rejected claims 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Dyor (US 2012/0144452 A1, published June 7, 2012). Final Act. 15-20. The Examiner has rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, Dyor, and Smith. Final Act. 20-21. 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 2, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed August 3, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed October 16, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 12, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 4 The Examiner has rejected claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Smith. Final Act. 27. The Examiner has rejected claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Barton (US 2014/0109174 A1, published April 17, 2012). Final Act. 27-28. The Examiner has rejected claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Walrath, and Burch (US 2014/0122730 A1, published May 1, 2014). Final Act. 28-29. The Examiner has rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, and Verne (US 9,405,602 B1, issued August 2, 2016). Final Act. 21-23. The Examiner has rejected claims 17 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Branch, Verne, and Adogla. Final Act. 23-26. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 30. Independent claims 1 and 10 and the claims which depend thereupon. Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 10-17. The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Branch and Walrath teach the claim 1 limitation of: based on the first location and the information about the user in the corresponding database record, predicting (i) a future location of the user and (ii) stored data required by the user at the future location; Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 5 causing a second device at the predicted location to electronically retrieve the stored data but suppress display thereof with a privacy screen thereover; detecting a walk-up event of the user to the second device, the walk-up event indicating the user's presence at the predicted location; following detection of the walk-up event at the second device, displaying the retrieved data on the second device at the predicted location by removing the privacy screen. Claim 1. Independent claim 10 recites a similar limitation directed to predicting the future location of a user, causing a second device to retrieve and store data on a second device, but suppress display of the data on the second device until a walk up is detected. The Examiner finds that Branch teaches predicting the future location of a user based upon the first location and causing the migrating of a workspace to a second device at the predicted location. Final Act. 5-6, (citing Branch ¶¶ 18, 23-25), Ans. 7-8 (citing Branch 18, 30, 32, equating the target data center where the workspace is migrated to with the claimed second device which retrieves the stored data at the predicted location). Further, the Examiner finds that Branch detects a walk up event at the second device, in that Branch teaches migration can be triggered by real- time information about the user’s location. Final Act. 6 (citing Branch ¶¶ 18, 32). The Examiner finds that: Branch does not explicitly teach detecting, at a first device at a first location, access to a secure resource by a previously authenticated user; detecting a walk-away event at the first device and, in response, causing a privacy screen to be launched at the first device; causing a device to electronically retrieve the stored data but suppress display thereof with a privacy screen thereover; and following detection of the walk- Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 6 up event the device displaying the retrieved data on the device at the location by removing the privacy screen. and relies upon Wrath to teach these features. Final Act. 6 (citing Walrath ¶¶ 23-26). We have reviewed the cited teachings of Branch and Walrath and do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner in response to Appellant’s arguments equates the claimed first device as either the device accessing the workspace or the data center hosting the workspace in Branch. Ans. 6 (citing Branch 24-25, 32). In discussing the limitations concerning the claimed second device the Examiner appears to be equating it to the a data center at a predicted location. Ans. 7. We disagree with this mapping of the claimed second device to Branch’s data center at the predicted location. Claim 1 recites that the second location electronically retrieves the stores data Claim 1 also recites detecting a walkup event of the user at the second device indicating the user is at the location and in response displaying the retrieved data on the second device at the predicted location. Independent claim 10 recites similar limitations. Thus, independent claims 1 and 10 not only recites that the data is retrieved at a device in a predicted location, but also that both the second device and the user are at the second location, and that the data is displayed on the second device. Branch teaches that the data centers are configured to host virtual workspaces, and that computing devices (e.g. smart phones, notebook computers, etc.) are how a user access the work spaces (i.e. the user is viewing the data on device different from the data center that is not necessarily at the data center). Branch ¶¶2, 18. Further, Branch teaches that the data center the data is migrated to is close (in the network) to the location the user is predicted to be in, but does not disclose that it is in the same Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 7 location as the user. Branch ¶ 30. Thus, the data center in Branch, which has the virtual workspace migrated to it, does not meet the claimed second device as data is not displayed on it, nor is it at the same location as the user. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown the combination of Branch and Walrath teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5 through 7, 23, and 26 through 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2 through 4, 8 through 15, and 26 through 30, similarly rely upon the teachings of Branch and Walrath teaches all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claims 1 and 10. Independent claim 16 and the claims which depend thereupon. Appellant presents several arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 16. Appeal Br. 21-24. The dispositive issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Branch and Verne teaches the claim 16 limitation of “a plurality of tracking sensors at different locations in the institutional space, each of the tracking sensors being configured to detect a proximate presence of an individual or a device and to produce signals indicative thereof.” Claim 16. The Examiner finds that Branch teaches sensors to detect a proximate presence in that Branch teaches using GPS tracking sensors. Final Act, 21- 22 (citing Branch Fig. 1, ¶18). In response to Appellant’s arguments that Branch’s GPS sensors do not meet the claimed sensors detecting proximity, the Examiner states: Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 8 Appellant's Spec. does not specifically define a tracking sensor. Accordingly, a tracking sensor will be interpreted under the BRI of the claim language as any device that can track/sense a presence of an entity. Branch Fig. 1, 104 and ¶ [0018], teaches that “the VWMM 112 predicts when and where a user will or may travel to ... using information such as, but not limited to ... location based information (e.g., VPN login information, GPS information, etc.)” The VPN login information and GPS information come from devices which track/sense the presence/location of an individual/device, and accordingly, these devices are tracking sensors under the BRI of that claim language. Therefore, Branch explicitly and clearly teaches tracking sensors. Ans. 14. We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and finding that Branch’s teaching of using GPS teaches the claimed tracking sensor. While Appellant’s Specification does not define a tracking sensor, claim 16 does recite that the sensors “detects a proximate presence of an individual or a device.” Thus, the scope of the claimed tracking sensor is limited to a sensor which detects a proximate presence. Branch, teaches that the GPS information is used to determine a position of a user. Branch ¶ 18. However, the Examiner has not shown nor do we consider it well known that GPS senses something (an individual or device) in its proximity. Further, in as much as Branch’s teaching that the location data from the GPS units are used to select data centers which are close, is what the Examiner is considering to teach the claimed detecting presence of an individual or device proximate the sensor, the claim is not met. Branch ¶ 30. Claim 16 also recites that a plurality of tracking sensors are “at different locations in the institutional space.” Examiner has not shown, nor do we find, Branch teaches that a plurality of tracking sensors (equated to the GPS Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 9 units) are at different locations and used to determine proximity. Accordingly, we do not find that the Examiner has shown the combination of Branch, and Verne teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 16 and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claims 17 through 22, similarly rely upon the teachings of Branch, and Verne teaches all of the limitations of independent claim 16. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claim 16. Appeal 2020-005699 Application 15/843,460 10 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 30. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-7, 23, 26-28 103 Branch, Walrath 1, 5-7, 23, 26-28 2, 25 103 Branch, Walrath, Chickering 2, 25 3, 4 103 Branch, Walrath, Adogla 3, 4 8 103 Branch, Walrath, Morisaki 8 9 103 Branch, Walrath, Morisaki, Smith 9 10-14 103 Branch, Walrath, Dyor 10-14 15 103 Branch, Walrath, Dyor, Smith 15 24 103 Branch, Walrath, Smith 24 29 103 Branch, Walrath, Barton 29 30 103 Branch, Walrath, Burch 30 16 103 Branch, Verne 16 17-22 103 Branch, Verne, Adogla 17-22 Overall Outcome 1-30 REVERSED